Public service commissions must ensure accessible examination venues for physically challenged candidates, reflecting reasonable accommodation principles to uphold their rights.

JUDGMENT

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

A Malayalam daily newspaper dated 8 August 2014 published a report describing how the Kerala Public Service Commission (KPSC) conducted a Special Recruitment Test for physically challenged candidates at Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. The report included photographs showing candidates with locomotor disabilities struggling to climb to the second floor of the examination hall.

2. The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) took suo motu cognizance of this report and issued a notice to the Secretary of the KPSC. The matter was considered during the NHRC’s camp sitting at Thiruvananthapuram on 9 April 2015. After examining the report dated 7 April 2015 submitted by the Secretary of the KPSC and hearing the representatives of the State Government and the KPSC, the NHRC decided to issue a show cause notice under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The notice called upon the Secretary to explain why compensation of ₹1,000/- each should not be recommended for payment to the 290 physically challenged candidates. The Secretary of the KPSC filed a reply opposing the proposed compensation. His undated response was received by the NHRC on 13 July 2015. After considering the reply, the NHRC held that the KPSC had failed to provide disability- friendly facilities for the examination and that this amounted to a violation of the human rights of the candidates. Consequently, by an order dated 30 January 2019, the NHRC recommended payment of ₹1,000/- each to the 290 candidates as a token of compensation. The KPSC has challenged this order in the present petition.

3. The Division Bench, by order dated 10 April 2019, admitted the petition, issued notice to the Respondents, and stayed the operation of the NHRC’s order. When the matter came up on 8 January 2025, the Court noted that only the NHRC was shown as a Respondent and that the beneficiaries of the impugned order were not represented. Accordingly, the Court appointed Advocate Mr. T. V. Vinu as Amicus Curiae to assist the Court. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted his written arguments on 10 March 2025.

4. We have heard Mr. P. C. Sasidharan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Petitioner – KPSC, and Mr. T. V. Vinu, the learned Amicus Curiae.

5. The primary duty of the Public Service Commissions, as provided under Article 320 of the Constitution of India, is to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the Union and the States, as the case may be. While discharging this duty, the Commissions have to remain conscious of the constitutional guarantees in Part III and the Directive Principles of State Policy in Part IV of the Constitution. When selecting venues for examinations meant for physically challenged candidates, the KPSC has to ensure that the chosen institutions have facilities suitable for their needs.

6. The KPSC conducted the examination on 6 August 2014 for persons with disabilities — an Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) test for the post of Lower Division Clerk (Special Recruitment). One of the centres selected for the test was the Teachers Training Institute, Manacaud, Thiruvananthapuram. Out of 400 registered candidates, 175 appeared for the test. Of these, 52 candidates were allotted rooms on the ground floor and 123 candidates were allotted rooms on the first floor. The physically challenged candidates faced serious difficulty in accessing the upper floors of the building. The lack of accessibility caused hardship to the candidates and amounted to a violation of their rights to life, liberty, equa